From: ikonoqlast@gmail.com   
      
   On Thursday, July 31, 2014 6:05:43 AM UTC-7, Will in New Haven wrote:   
      
      
   > He never pays attention to _anything_ outside his own skull. The Israeli   
   decision was a political decision, taken above the heads of the military to   
   appease the leaders of a minority community that largely did not serve in the   
   military themselves.    
      
      
   It is rather ironic that you say that while demonstrating those very qualities   
   yourself.     
      
      
      
      
      
   > > It doesn't matter what the commander thinks is a good and useful idea.  We   
   did, in fact, put women directly in harm's way for specific utilitarian   
   reasons in Iraq.   
      
      
   Snicker, pick ONE "it doesn't matter what the commander thinks" or "for   
   specific utilitarian reasons in Iraq".  Who do you think MADE those decisions,   
   hmmm?     
      
   You directly contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next.   
      
      
      
      
   >  No, they didn't train as infantry, but they went on patrols and they went   
   far outside the wire to "man" checkpoints.  Some of it Congress found out   
   about and that was that.  Some of the other of it was what the "commanders"   
   had to screw around with in    
   order to follow the rules that those "shit-for-brains" orthodox old men   
   insisted upon.   
      
      
   Interesting, you seem to be unaware that it was that exact class of people who   
   put women IN combat roles in Israel.     
      
   You can't simultaneously complain about contradictory decisions made by   
   non-military personnel.  If the Orthodox are "shit for brains" then so are the   
   judges who said "girls have to be allowed to play too".  You can't have it   
   both ways.   
      
   And it WASN'T the orthodox who took women out of combat, it was the military   
   itself.  They analyzed the combat performance of units with women, and   
   determined that women had a negative impact.  There is a REASON no one does   
   it, and it isn't because    
   everyone but you is stupid...   
      
      
      
   >  We lost an entire busload of female soldiers in one attack... twenty-some   
   dead women all at once...  because while the *men* stayed overnight at the   
   checkpoints because it was *too dangerous* to return to the main base between   
   shifts, the *female*    
   soldiers couldn't remain out there bunked with the guys so they loaded them   
   all up on a bus every single day and drove them out and drove them back.  This   
   was not a *military* decision... it was pure politics and it got something   
   like 26 women killed.   
      
      
   Uh, no.  Now you are just on a rant.  I SERVED in the military (specifically   
   in the infantry).  I have first hand experience with female 'soldiers'.  I   
   would not want them any where near me.  THEY ARE POOR SOLDIERS even aside from   
   their physical    
   disability.  They are undisciplined and unreliable.  Throw in the disruptive   
   influence they have on units, and forget it.  Three strikes and you're out.    
   That you can find 1 in 20 who might be an exception doesn't justify the other   
   19.   
      
      
      
      
   > > After that women from all sorts of non-combat MOSs volunteered to take the   
   place of those who died because we NEEDED women to search Iraqi women.    
   Because women do understand Duty and they understand Service, and Honor.   
      
      
   Actually you are identifying a specific need for women that does not mean   
   women soldiers.     
      
   You have said nothing whatsoever that supports the contention that women   
   combat soldiers would be an improvement over entirely male combat units.     
      
      
      
      
   > > > Excuse me, but writing SF doesn't mean I have to accept your Progressive   
   agenda.  I know better how and why society and its components work.     
      
      
   > I don't _care_ what he writes (or even IF he writes) but "nobody does it"   
   isn't an SF writer's reason for not doing something.    
      
      
   It wasn't the reason I actually gave, but it is a perfectly good reason   
   nonetheless.  If no one is doing it, there is a damn good reason why even if   
   you don't know what that reason IS.  You are not a precious, unique snowflake   
   who understands things    
   better than literally everyone else in the world.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)